The matter of Suresh Kumar Jain Vs Sales Tax Officer Class II Avato & Anr is related to the dispute originating from a Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The applicant contested the order on 29.12.2023, which disposed of the SCN, and sought a demand of Rs. 4,70,512.00 against him, including penalties.
The applicant contends that the original SCN, issued dated 21.07.2022, did not afford him a personal hearing despite differences of Rs. 54,704.56/- for the ITC mismatch between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B. A reply was filed dated 04.08.2022, including proof of payment, but the applicant was served attachments to the SCN on 26.09.2023 without acknowledging his answer.
A detailed response was proposed on 22.10.2023, but the impugned order on 29.12.2023 was unable to address it sufficiently, stating the same unsatisfactory without appropriate examination.
The High Court witnessed that the impugned order does not have sustainability since the same does not acknowledge the detailed answer furnished by the applicant.
The view of the proper officer that the response was inadequate seems arbitrary showing the lack of application of mind. Also, no chance was furnished to the applicant to clarify or provide the other information, rendering the order unfair.
Read Also: Delhi HC Orders Restoration of GSTIN Due to Lack of Proper Opportunity
The High Court under such discrepancies set aside the impugned order and remitted the case to the Proper officer for the re-adjudication. This led the officer to mention the needed information/documents from the applicant who provided the explanations and documents accordingly.
To re-adjudicate the show cause notice the proper officer was directed post-furnishing a chance for the personal hearing and to pass the new order within the specified duration under Section 75(3) of the CGST Act.
The judgment in Suresh Kumar Jain Vs Sales Tax Officer shows the importance of affording assesses an appropriate chance to be heard and confirming the effective acknowledgement of their replies in the proceedings of GST. The decision of the High Court shows the principle of natural justice and fairness in procedure, stressing the requirement for the analysis and reasoned orders via tax authorities.
| Case Title | Suresh Kumar Jain Versus Sales Tax Officer |
| Case No. | W.p.(c) 3558/2024 |
| Date | 11.03.2024 |
| Counsel For Petitioner | Mr Prince Mohan Sinhaa, Mr Rajeev Deora and Mr Manish Jain, Advocates. |
| Counsel For Respondent | Mr Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC with Ms Samridhi Vats, Advocate |
| Delhi High Court | Read Order |
